2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemLessons learnt from the first EMEP intensive measurement periods(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2012) Aas, W.; Tsyro, S.; Bieber, E.; Bergström, R.; Ceburnis, D.; Ellermann, T.; Fagerli, H.; Frölich, M.; Gehrig, R.; Makkonen, U.; Nemitz, E.; Otjes, R.; Perez, N.; Perrino, C.; Prévôt, A.S.H.; Putaud, J.-P.; Simpson, D.; Spindler, G.; Vana, M.; Yttri, K.E.The first EMEP intensive measurement periods were held in June 2006 and January 2007. The measurements aimed to characterize the aerosol chemical compositions, including the gas/aerosol partitioning of inorganic compounds. The measurement program during these periods included daily or hourly measurements of the secondary inorganic components, with additional measurements of elemental- and organic carbon (EC and OC) and mineral dust in PM1, PM2.5 and PM10. These measurements have provided extended knowledge regarding the composition of particulate matter and the temporal and spatial variability of PM, as well as an extended database for the assessment of chemical transport models. This paper summarise the first experiences of making use of measurements from the first EMEP intensive measurement periods along with EMEP model results from the updated model version to characterise aerosol composition. We investigated how the PM chemical composition varies between the summer and the winter month and geographically. The observation and model data are in general agreement regarding the main features of PM10 and PM2.5 composition and the relative contribution of different components, though the EMEP model tends to give slightly lower estimates of PM10 and PM2.5 compared to measurements. The intensive measurement data has identified areas where improvements are needed. Hourly concurrent measurements of gaseous and particulate components for the first time facilitated testing of modelled diurnal variability of the gas/aerosol partitioning of nitrogen species. In general, the modelled diurnal cycles of nitrate and ammonium aerosols are in fair agreement with the measurements, but the diurnal variability of ammonia is not well captured. The largest differences between model and observations of aerosol mass are seen in Italy during winter, which to a large extent may be explained by an underestimation of residential wood burning sources. It should be noted that both primary and secondary OC has been included in the calculations for the first time, showing promising results. Mineral dust is important, especially in southern Europe, and the model seems to capture the dust episodes well. The lack of measurements of mineral dust hampers the possibility for model evaluation for this highly uncertain PM component. There are also lessons learnt regarding improved measurements for future intensive periods. There is a need for increased comparability between the measurements at different sites. For the nitrogen compounds it is clear that more measurements using artefact free methods based on continuous measurement methods and/or denuders are needed. For EC/OC, a reference methodology (both in field and laboratory) was lacking during these periods giving problems with comparability, though measurement protocols have recently been established and these should be followed by the Parties to the EMEP Protocol. For measurements with no defined protocols, it might be a good solution to use centralised laboratories to ensure comparability across the network. To cope with the introduction of these new measurements, new reporting guidelines have been developed to ensure that all proper information about the methodologies and data quality is given.
- ItemMobility particle size spectrometers: Harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2012) Wiedensohler, A.; Birmili, W.; Nowak, A.; Sonntag, A.; Weinhold, K.; Merkel, M.; Wehner, B.; Tuch, T.; Pfeifer, S.; Fiebig, M.; Fjäraa, A.M.; Asmi, E.; Sellegri, K.; Depuy, R.; Venzac, H.; Villani, P.; Laj, P.; Aalto, P.; Ogren, J.A.; Swietlick, E.; Williams, P.; Roldin, P.; Quincey, P.; Hüglin, C.; Fierz-Schmidhauser, R.; Gysel, M.; Weingartner, E.; Riccobono, F.; Santos, S.; Grüning, C.; Faloon, K.; Beddows, D.; Harrison, R.; Monahan, C.; Jennings, S.G.; O'Dowd, C.D.; Marinoni, A.; Horn, H.-G.; Keck, L.; Jiang, J.; Scheckman, J.; McMurry, P.H.; Deng, Z.; Zhao, C.S.; Moerman, M.; Henzing, B.; de Leeuw, G.; Löschau, G.; Bastian, S.Mobility particle size spectrometers often referred to as DMPS (Differential Mobility Particle Sizers) or SMPS (Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers) have found a wide range of applications in atmospheric aerosol research. However, comparability of measurements conducted world-wide is hampered by lack of generally accepted technical standards and guidelines with respect to the instrumental set-up, measurement mode, data evaluation as well as quality control. Technical standards were developed for a minimum requirement of mobility size spectrometry to perform long-term atmospheric aerosol measurements. Technical recommendations include continuous monitoring of flow rates, temperature, pressure, and relative humidity for the sheath and sample air in the differential mobility analyzer. We compared commercial and custom-made inversion routines to calculate the particle number size distributions from the measured electrical mobility distribution. All inversion routines are comparable within few per cent uncertainty for a given set of raw data. Furthermore, this work summarizes the results from several instrument intercomparison workshops conducted within the European infrastructure project EUSAAR (European Supersites for Atmospheric Aerosol Research) and ACTRIS (Aerosols, Clouds, and Trace gases Research InfraStructure Network) to determine present uncertainties especially of custom-built mobility particle size spectrometers. Under controlled laboratory conditions, the particle number size distributions from 20 to 200 nm determined by mobility particle size spectrometers of different design are within an uncertainty range of around ±10% after correcting internal particle losses, while below and above this size range the discrepancies increased. For particles larger than 200 nm, the uncertainty range increased to 30%, which could not be explained. The network reference mobility spectrometers with identical design agreed within ±4% in the peak particle number concentration when all settings were done carefully. The consistency of these reference instruments to the total particle number concentration was demonstrated to be less than 5%. Additionally, a new data structure for particle number size distributions was introduced to store and disseminate the data at EMEP (European Monitoring and Evaluation Program). This structure contains three levels: raw data, processed data, and final particle size distributions. Importantly, we recommend reporting raw measurements including all relevant instrument parameters as well as a complete documentation on all data transformation and correction steps. These technical and data structure standards aim to enhance the quality of long-term size distribution measurements, their comparability between different networks and sites, and their transparency and traceability back to raw data.